EUS-guided drainage using hepaticocolostomy after esogastrectomy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hedjoudje A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947329 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6030706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided transmural drainage has been accepted as a modality of choice in peripancreatic fluid collection and acute cholecystitis. Each type of stent, including double-pigtail plastic stents, tubular self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents, for these procedure has its own advantages and disadvantages. To overcome their disadvantages, this animal study evaluated the feasibility of a newly designed twisted fully covered SEMS with spiral coiled ends. We performed the EUS-guided cholecystogastrostomy with a newly developed metal stent in eight mini pigs with surgically induced gallbladder distension. This novel stent is a twisted fully covered SEMS with spiral coiled ends, a diameter of 8 mm, and a length of 6 cm. The stent has been maintained for four to seven weeks after EUS-guided cholecystogastrostomy. The primary outcome was the technical success rate, and the secondary outcomes were adverse events, stent dysfunction, stent removability, and fistula formation. The stent was placed successfully between the gallbladder and the stomach in all cases without any adverse event. We observed neither stent migration nor dysfunction during the study period, and all the stents were removed easily as scheduled. We confirmed successful cholecysto-gastric fistula formation at endoscopic and histologic level in all cases. EUS-guided transmural drainage and fistula formation using a new twisted fully covered metal stent with spiral coiled ends was technically feasible without any adverse event in this animal study. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in real practice.
| S-EPMC7341883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesEUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a stent, catheter, or both for drainage of the target abscess. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the safety and efficacy of EUS-PAD.Materials and methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to February 2020). The primary outcomes for this study were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PAD. The secondary outcomes assessed for this study were adverse events of the procedure and subgroup analysis of individual adverse events.ResultsEight studies with a total of 135 patients combined were included in our analysis. The rate of technical success was 100% and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%, 98%; P = 0.31; I2 = 15%). The calculated pooled rate of adverse events was 9.4% (±17.9%), with stent migration (5.5 ± 18.06%) being the most common adverse event.ConclusionEUS-PAD offers a viable alternative that can minimize the need for surgical intervention in the drainage of pelvic abscesses. EUS-PAD has also demonstrated long-term clinical success with an acceptable rate of complications.
| S-EPMC8248303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP in patients requiring biliary drainage. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall efficacy and safety of EUS-BD. We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS databases (earliest inception to June 2018) to identify studies that reported EUS-BD in patients. The primary outcome was to look at the technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary analysis focused on calculating the pooled rate of re-interventions and all adverse-events, along with the commonly reported adverse-event subtypes. Twenty-three studies reporting on 1437 patients were identified undergoing 1444 procedures. Majority of the patient population were male (53.86%), with an average age of 67.22 years. The pooled technical success rates and clinical success rates were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.7-94.2, I[2] = 76.5) and 87% (95% CI: 82.3-90.6, I[2] = 72.4), respectively. The total adverse event rates were 17.9% (95% CI: 14.3-22.2, I[2] = 69.1). Subgroup analysis of three major individual adverse events was bile leak: 4.1% (2.7-6.2, I[2] = 46.7), stent migration: 3.9% (2.5-6.2, I[2] = 43.5), and infection: 3.8% (2.8-5.1, I[2] = 0) Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. EUS-BD has high technical and clinical success rate and hence a very effective procedure. Concerns about publication bias exist. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse events and weighing the risks and benefits of the alternative nonsurgical/surgical approaches.
| S-EPMC7279084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1EUS-guided FNA and lumen-apposing metallic stent deployment.
| S-EPMC10422084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in a patient with Billroth II gastrojejunostomy.
| S-EPMC10122118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsEUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) can be used to treat acute cholecystitis in patients with medical comorbidities that prevent definitive operative management. Historically, nonsurgical management of cholecystitis was achieved by way of percutaneous gallbladder drainage.MethodsWe examined the periprocedural bleeding rate of EUS-GBD for acute cholecystitis using lumen-apposing metal stents in 5 high-surgical-risk patients requiring anticoagulation. Data on 5 nonoperative candidates with acute cholecystitis who underwent EUS-GBD were studied retrospectively.ResultsThere were no immediate or delayed postprocedure adverse events, including bleeding.ConclusionsAlthough further study is needed, EUS-GBD appears safe in patients who require periprocedural anticoagulation.
| S-EPMC7572616 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5992443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Single-session EDGE with ERCP and EUS gallbladder drainage.
| S-EPMC8573714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives:EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients and Methods:An international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice. Results:In total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714-5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001). Conclusions:In this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.
| S-EPMC5838728 | biostudies-literature